Talk:Stalking horse offer

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Give me a little while, here

I think that per this, notability will be able to be established. Don't be too hasty here, please. S. Dean Jameson 04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stalking horse article

This article should be merged with the Stalking Horse article for several reasons. That article was pre-existing and already encompasses stalking horse offers (these examples could be added). Also, this article does not explain the metaphor and doing so would make this article largely redundant with the original Stalking Horse article. Finally, the Stalking Horse article clarifies the use of the term in many related areas. Amead (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)amead[reply]

Do not merge Hi, the merge template points to Talk:Stalking horse for discussion, so that's where I've put in my comments. But to summarize, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary (cf. WP:DICT), so the fact that this concept is named a 'stalking horse' offer is not a reason to merge. The Stalking horse offer article should of course link to stalking horse to explain the name. --Macrakis (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- ... Which it doesn't (right now)! Isn't it more than a little bit silly that this article, which is composed mainly of material removed from the stalking horse article, doesn't even link to that article which explains the broad use and origins of the term? I'm not going to merge them, and it seems no one but the two of us care, but it doesn't help make Wikipedia a better resource to fragment the bits of knowledge. Having this article seems like more a dictionary model--the opposite of an encyclopedia model. If the stalking horse article were really long or if this use of stalking horse were completely unrelated to other uses, I would understand the need. But that is not the case. It is silly to have these two articles and obviously the stalking horse offer article is the lesser of the two that should clearly be merged. Amead (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking horse offers relate solely to American bankruptcy, or rather insolvencies. It is not the same as stalking horses.203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instance or not?

To merge or not depends on whether this concept originated as a specific instance of the Stalking Horse concept, or whether the term was applied later to a methodology that had an earlier name. What do 19th century business letters say? I'll bet that the first time someone tried to describe or generalize on the use of this kind of offer, they picked the term based on its existing meaning. Thus it is a specific instance of that concept, and belongs as a section of that article.69.72.27.193 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of a term is not relevant to whether there should be two articles or one. The 'eye' of a hurricane is clearly named for the body part, but that doesn't mean that it should be covered in the same article as the body part. --Macrakis (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Jargon?

I was very confused by the phrase "Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson." Is there an article on this company(/person?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtschoen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]